Tag Archives: Al-Azhar

Today letters were issued to several Islamic organizations in the United States by a Coalition of concerned citizens to get their official response to recent comments by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

The organizations contacted for their response included the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the North American Islamic Trust.

The Coalition sought responses for the following questions:

Is it the position of your organization that the imams of Al Azhar have a responsibility to renounce the “mindset” of jihad, conquest, and, as suggested by President Sisi, genocide of the world’s non-Muslims?

Is it the position of your organization that the time is right for a “religious revolution,” as President Sisi stated?

Is it the position of your organization that jihad is a holy obligation for all Muslims?

On New Year’s Day, President Sisi addressed the famous Egyptian University, Al Azhar. Occasionally called the “Vatican” of Islam, Al Azhar is a major center of Sunni Islamic thought, one of the most important scholarly institutions in the Islamic world.

President Sisi urged the imams (religious leaders) at Al Azhar to denounce the violence and revolution that has defined the Middle East since the Arab Spring. He urged the venerable institution to condemn the idea that “1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!”

Since the Arab Spring, the moderate and stable regimes have been under sustained assault by terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and other affiliated networks. President Sisi came to power in Egypt following the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi, who is himself a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

President Sisi’s speech is seen as a direct challenge to the Muslim Brotherhood and the idea that jihad, or war against non-Muslims, must define Islam. According to the Muslim Brotherhood, jihad is the duty of all Muslims, and the highest honor for Muslims is actual death fighting jihad. (The motto of the organization states, “God is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of God is our wish.”)

In November, CAIR and MAS were designated as terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates. Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have also designated the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic umbrella organization operating around the world, including in the United States, as a terrorist organization.

The Coalition, which includes retired military leaders, journalists, and citizen activists, will publicly release any and all responses from these organizations.

Below is a copy of the letter sent to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Identical letters were sent to the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim American Society, the North American Islamic Trust, and various chapters of the Muslim Students Association.

This is a request for your organization’s official response to the speech given by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

On New Year’s Day, President Sisi stated (in part) before an audience at Al Azhar University in Cairo:

“I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

In light of President Sisi’s comments, we ask for public clarification on the following points:

Is it the position of ISNA that the imams of Al Azhar have a responsibility to renounce the “mindset” of jihad, conquest, and, as suggested by President Sisi, genocide of the world’s non-Muslims?

Is it the position of ISNA that the time is right for a “religious revolution,” as President Sisi stated?

Is it the position of ISNA that jihad is a holy obligation for all Muslims?

Please note that this letter will be made public and published. We look forward to your prompt response.

Sisi made his remarks during a speech celebrating the birth of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad—which was ironically held on January 1, 2015 (a day not acknowledged or celebrated in the Muslim world as it is based on a Christian calendar)—and he was addressing the nation’s top Islamic authorities from among the Awqaf Ministry (religious endowments) and Al Azhar University.

Although Sisi’s words were directed to Islam’s guardians and articulators, they indirectly lead to several important lessons for Western observers.

First, in just a few words, Sisi delivered a dose of truth and hard-hitting reality concerning the Islamic world’s relationship to the rest of the world—a dose of reality very few Western leaders dare think let alone proclaim.

“It’s inconceivable,” he said, “that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!”

What a refreshingly honest statement to come from not only a political leader but a Muslim political leader who has much to lose, not least his life! Contrast his very true words with the habitual reassurances of the Western establishment that Islamic world violence and intolerance is a product of anything and everything but Islam.

Even after the appearance of the head-chopping, infidel-crucifying Islamic State, politicians like U.S. President Obama and U.K. Prime Minister Cameron insisted that the “caliphate” is not Islamic, despite all the evidence otherwise. Yet here is Sisi, the pious Muslim, saying that the majority of the terrorism plaguing the world today is related to the holy texts of Islam themselves:

That thinking [that is responsible for producing “anxiety, danger, killing and destruction” around the world]—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

As a Muslim, Sisi will not say that Islam, the “religion,” is responsible for “antagonizing the entire world,” but he certainly goes much further than his Western counterparts when he says that this “thinking” is rooted in an Islamic “corpus of texts and ideas” which have become so “sacralized.”

Recall that here in the West, Islamic terrorists are seen as mere “criminals” and their terrorism as “crimes” without mention of any Islamic text or ideology driving them.

The Egyptian president further invoked the classical Islamic teaching—the “thinking”—that divides the world into two warring halves: the Muslim world (or in Islamic/Arabic parlance, Dar al-Islam) which must forever be in a struggle with the rest of the world (or Dar al-Harb, the “abode of war”) till, in the Koran’s words, “all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39).

“Is it possible,” asked Sisi, “that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live?”

Sisi made another important point that Western leaders and media habitually lie about: after affirming that Islamic “thinking” is “antagonizing the entire world,” he said that “this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

In other words, Islamic terrorism and chaos is not a product of grievance, territorial disputes, colonialism, Israel, offensive cartoons, or anything else the West points to. It’s a product of their “own hands.”

Again, one must appreciate how refreshing it is for a top political leader in the heart of the Islamic world to make such candid admissions that his Western counterparts dare not even think let alone speak. And bear in mind, Sisi has much to lose as opposed to Western politicians. Calls by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists that he is an apostate are sure to grow more aggressive now.

The critic may ask, “All well and good, but words aside, what has Sisi actually done to help bring about this “religious revolution”? In fact, one popular journalist, Ibrahim Eissa, recently said just this on live television in Egypt:

Five months have passed since he [Sisi] became president, after his amazing showing at elections. Okay: the president has, more than once, indicated the need for a renewal of religious discourse…. But he has not done a single thing, President Sisi, to renew religious discourse. Nothing at all.

Yet it seems that Sisi has an answer for this, too: it is not his job as president of Egypt to reform the thinking of the Islamic world; rather, that role belongs to the ulema—which is precisely why he addressed them with such candid words. Indeed, he repeatedly stressed that it is the ulema’s job to lead this “religious revolution.”

Thus, “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move…. I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.”

Meanwhile, while Sisi was making these groundbreaking if not historic statements, the Western mainstream media, true to form, ignored them and instead offered puerile and redundant headlines, most critical of Sisi, like:

“Egypt President Sisi urged to free al-Jazeera reporter” (BBC, Jan 1; to which I respond, “Why, so Al Jazeera can continue lying and misleading the West about Sisi and Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution?”)

“Egyptian gays living in fear under Sisi regime” (USA Today, Jan. 2; to which I respond, “Homosexuals live in fear in all Islamic nations, regardless of Sisi.”)

“George Clooney’s wife Amal risks arrest in Egypt” (Fox News, Jan. 3; to which I respond, “Who cares? Only her innocence or guilt matter, not her husband’s fame”—which is the only reason Fox News chose the story in the first place.)

Whether concerning the true nature of Islam or the true nature of Sisi, here is the latest example of how unfathomably ignorant all those millions of people who exclusively follow the so-called “mainstream media” must surely be.

Groups led by Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi have been expelled from the International Islamic Council for Da’wah and Relief. The Cairo based council, which performs Islamic proselytizing and charity work, expelled Qaradawi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars on the grounds they mixed religion and politics and supported terrorism. The council has over 80 organizations in its ranks and performs work all over the world.

The council made the ruling in a session on Tuesday, alongside senior figures from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The council is headed by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the most respected authority in the Sunni Islamic world and one of the world’s oldest universities.

Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi is the leading ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood. He guides members on religious matters and his interpretation of Islam is followed by the group. He has spoken out in the past in favor of female genital mutilation, on which subject he later claimed to have changed his mind, and wife beating. He has been filmed calling for the next holocaust against Jews to be perpetrated by Muslims and has personally expressed his desire to take part in such an event.

Andrew’s post describing the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Mali is essential, if excruciating, reading. Beyond the monstrously cruel but all too usual punishments being imposed, I’m struck by two things, which really show how willful blindness leads inexorably to spring fever: The Guardian attributes the atrocious penalties to the “menace of al-Qaida”; it also notes, however, that the “ban [on music] comes in the context of a horrifically literal and gratuitous application of Sharia law in all aspects of daily life.”

Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, al Qaeda did not make up sharia law. Islam did. And in the West, it is a key tenet of due process that law is imposed literally — ambiguous laws violate the principle that people of ordinary intelligence must be on fair notice of what is prohibited. There’s nothing “gratuitous” about applying as it is written.

We can keep our heads tucked snug in the sand, or we can recognize the source of the problem. As I detail in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the literalist construction of sharia that al Qaeda’s local franchise is enforcing in Mali is “literal” because it comes from Islamic scripture, not from some purportedly “extremist” fabrication of Islam. Moreover, while it seems only militant jihadists proudly urge this construction in practice, it is enthusiastically endorsed in principle by two of the most influential institutions in the Islamic Middle East: al Azhar University and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Don’t just take my word for it. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law is not some al Qaeda pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think-tank begun in the early eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”) — and from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West (“We certify,” the famed scholars wrote, that the “translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community…. There is no objection to printing it and circulating it…. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.” There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.).

#more#

Reliance is also endorsed by Islamic authorities in Jordan (leading influences on a largely Palestinian population that may well overthrow the pro-Western monarchy) and Syria (leading influences on the “rebels” on whose side interventionists — including both presidential candidates — would have us jump to abet the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing campaign to oust the minority Alawite Assad regime).

Here, as I summarize in Spring Fever – quoted verbatim and supported by citations — is what Reliance has to say about the arts:

It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)

“Musical instruments of all types are unlawful.” Singing is generally prohibited (for “song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage), and “[o]n the Day of Resurrection Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” However, if unaccompanied by musical instruments, song and poetry drawn from Islamic scripture and encouraging obedience to Allah are permissible. Ironically, although music is generally forbidden, dancing is permissible “unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate.” (Reliance r40.0 &ff.)

Those sharia provisions are complemented by these — again, endorsed by al-Azhar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and our “moderate” “allies” in the region:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

[Note: These latter prohibitions against denying or reviling any aspect of Islam, Allah or the prophet are the basis for imposing death for blasphemy. The call to kill apostates for such offenses obviously applies with equal or greater force to non-Muslims, who are pervasively treated worse than Muslims by sharia (see, e.g., Sura 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the poll tax imposed on non-believers for the privilege of living in the Islamic state] and feel themselves subdued.”)]

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity” –zakat can only be given to Muslims and is designed strictly to fortify the Muslim community, not benefit the less fortunate generally); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster…. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1-17.)

Non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various adhesive conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliancep50.0 & ff; p.74.0& ff.)

The penalty for fornication is to be stoned to death, unless one is without the “capacity to remain chaste,” in which case the penalty is “being scourged one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50mi. for one year.” (Relianceo12.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. – Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliancep42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2-3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Relianceo14.0.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliancep7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Relianceo24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet … said, “Men are already destroyed when they obey women.” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not al Qaeda doctrine. This is sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. It is not the construction of Islam that many Muslims in the West wish to live under. But it is the mainstream supremacist Islam of the Middle East, which Islamic leaders — including those who come to the West to preach it — would not dream of discrediting, even if they are not as enthusiastic as al Qaeda where imposing it is concerned.

The State Department and the leading foreign policy voices of both major American political parties say sharia is perfectly compatible with “democracy” and the Western conception of human rights — of liberty and equality. Sure it is. And then you wonder why the Obama administration opens a consulate in Benghazi, one of the most perilous places in the world for Americans, refuses to safeguard it despite multiple pleas for beefed up security, and then fraudulently claims a pluperfectly predictable atrocity was caused by a video no one ever saw. If you’re going to live in a dreamworld, better get used to nightmare consequences.

Since its founding in 973 C.E., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, during that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have represented and espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and infidel hatred at the core of mainstream, institutional Islam.

Al Azhar’s contemporary espousal of sacralized Islamic animosity has been directed, unsurprisingly, against Jews and Israel,dating back to the 20th century origins, and ultimate creation, of the modern Jewish State. Despite nearly universal willful blindness by media, academic, and policymaking elites, this critical issue of sacralized incitement of Muslim Jew-hatred by Islam’s Sunni Muslim Vatican, remains center stage.

Ahmad Al-Tayeb, as current Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, is the Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent. During an interview with Al-Tayeb, which recently aired on Channel 1, Egyptian TV, October 25, 2013, the Al-Azhar Grand Imam gave a brief explanation of the ongoing relevance of the Koranic verse 5:82 (sura, or chapter 5, verse 82) has been invoked—“successfully”—to inspire Muslim hatred of Jews since the advent of Islam:

A verse in the Koran explains the Muslims’ relations with the Jews and the polytheists. The second part of the verse describes the Muslims’ relations with the Christians, and the third part of the verse explains why the Christians are the closest and most friendly to the Muslims. This is an historical perspective, which has not changed to this day. See how we suffer today from global Zionism and Judaism, whereas our peaceful coexistence with the Christians has withstood the test of history. Since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago, we have been suffering from Jewish and Zionist interference in Muslim affairs. This is a cause of great distress for the Muslims. The Koran said it and history has proven it: “You shall find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists.” This is the first part. The second part is: “You shall find the closest in love to the believers to be those who say: ‘We are Christians’.” The third part explains why the Christians are “the closest in love to the believers,” while the Jews and the polytheists are the exact opposite.

Grand Imam Al-Tayaeb’s assessment is upheld by a continuum of authoritative Koranic exegeses that span over a thousand years, till now. The classical Koranic commentaries on Koran 5:82 by al-Tabari (d. 923), Zamakashari (d. 1143), Baydawi (d. 1316), and Ibn Kathir demonstrate a uniformity of opinion regarding the animus of the Jews toward the Muslims, which is repeatedly linked to the curse of Koran 2:61 (i.e., for killing prophets, and transgressing against the will of Allah, repeated at verses including 2:90-91, 3:112, 3:181, and 4:155):

[Tabari]: In my (Tabari’s) opinion, (the Christians) are not like the Jews who always scheme in order to murder the emissaries and the prophets, and who oppose Allah in his positive and negative commandments, and who corrupt His scripture which He revealed in His books.

[Zamakshari]: Here Allah portrays the Jews as being unyielding and as acknowledging the truth only grudgingly. . . . On account of their vehement enmity against the believers, Allah places the Jews together with the idolaters; indeed, going even further, he shows them to be at the head, since they are mentioned before the idolaters. Allah does the same in his words: “And thou shalt find them (the Jews) the eagerest of men for life—even more so than the idolaters. Each of them wishes he could be given a life of a thousand years; but the grant of life would not save him from chastisement—for God sees well all that they do!” (sura 2:96/90). The Jews are surely like this, and even worse! From the Prophet (the following is related): “If a Muslim is alone with two Jews, they will try to kill him.”. . . The Jews focused their hostility to the Muslims in the most overt and intense manner . . .

[Baydawi]: [B]ecause of [the Jews’] intense obstinacy, multifaceted disbelief, and their addiction to following their whims, their adherence to the blind following of their tradition, their distancing themselves from the truth, and their unrelenting denial of, and hostility toward, the prophets . . . [the Christians] . . . easiness to deal with, the softness of their hearts, their dismissal of gain in this world, and their serious concern with learning and good deeds . . .their acceptance of the truth as soon as they understand it; or, because of their humility as opposed to the arrogance of the Jews.

[Ibn Kathir]: Allah said, “Verily you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers the Jews and those who commit Shirk [i.e., the polytheists, or idolaters].” This describes the Jews, since their disbelief is that of rebellion, defiance, opposing the truth, belittling other people, and degrading the scholars. This is why the Jews—may Allah’s continued curses descend on them until the Day of Resurrection—killed many of their Prophets and tried to kill the Messenger of Allah several times, as well as performing magic spells against him and poisoning him. They also incited their likes among the polytheists against the Prophet.

Also listen to this… “he can kill the married adulterer, the fighter, whoever gave up praying, and whoever has a punishment on him… even if the Imam did not give his permission for the killing.”

Take note… those are allowing people to go kill other people.

Despite some of the rhetoric in this video, this is probably not an invitation for Cannibal Islamist mobs to begin roaming the streets devouring the flesh of apostates. It would make for a hell of a zombie movie though.

Three days before the first round of voting began for Egypt’s constitutional referendum on December 15, 2012, Hesham Darwish, from Cairo’s Hadayeq al-Qobba district, summarized the views of those who planned to vote “yes,” and affirm the charter:

People are thirsty for Sharia. [emphasis added] We do not support the president for who he is, but rather for the Islamic project he promises.

Yesterday (12/22/12), during the second round of voting, Hesham Darwish’s mindset held sway overwhelmingly in two Upper Egypt governorates on both sides of the Nile. Eighty-three percent (83.2%; 763,729/918,034) voted “yes” in Minya approximately 150 miles south of Cairo on the western bank of the Nile River, which flows north through the city), while in Qena, situated on the east bank of the Nile, some 300 miles south of Cairo, 84.7% (307,839/363,518 ) affirmed the charter, according to unofficial final tallies published by Al-Ahram. (See full results tabulated below)

When pooled with the first round of voting, a total of 64.0% (10,543,893/16,472,241), including 67.5% (162,231/240,224) of Egyptian expatriates, approved Egypt’s recently drafted, more Sharia-compliant constitution.

The referendum’s final results validate remarkably consistent polling data of Egyptian attitudes towards the Sharia chronicled since at least early 2007, through an Egyptian Vote Compass self-administered survey whose results were revealed just a week prior to voting began on 12/15/12.

Within a few days of their publication in April, 2007, I highlighted data from Egypt indicating that 74% of Egyptians favored “strict” application of the Sharia in general. As recently as December 2010, Pew polling data revealed that 84% of Egyptian Muslims rejected freedom of conscience in the most ugly terms claiming apostates should be killed (i.e., that percentage would likely be well over 90% if less draconian punishments, such as imprisonment and beating till recantation were queried), 82% favor stoning adulterers to death, and 77% approved of mutilating punishments for theft. Summarizing these findings, and other overall survey trends, pollster Douglas Schoen in an essay published February 10, 2011, cited additional composite data indicating that at least 60% of Egyptians held “fundamentalist” Islamic views, while only 20% could be classified as “secular” in their orientation. Finally, Dutch Political Scientist André Krouwel, working with an academic team of Egyptian political scientists at Vote Compass Egypt, who applied an interactive electoral literacy application, predicted in an interview published 12/8/12,

About 70 per cent of the population will vote in favor of the constitution

It is also apparent that Egyptians have voted en masse for a charter, which, relative to the 1971 constitution, more openly advances Sharia supremacism in its revised language, and by assigning an oversight role to the bastion of mainstream obscurantist Sunni Islamic religious education, Al-Azhar University.

Comparing the suspended 1971 Constitution, with the current draft charter, several features, consistent with the more pronounced influence of Sharia, are immediately apparent:

Egypt is now identified “as part of the Arabic and Islamic nations (Umma)”

Article 2 from 1971, remains intact, stating, “Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Sharia are the main source of legislation.”; however, the complementary Article 219, adds the specific statement, “The principles of Sharia include general evidence and foundations, rules and jurisprudence as well as sources accepted by doctrines of Sunni Islam and the majority of Muslim scholars.” Moreover, whereas no mention of al-Azhar University or its Muslim legists was included in the 1971 constitution, the current draft states plainly, “Al-Azhar is an independent and a comprehensive entity. It takes the task of preaching Islam in Egypt and in the whole world. Scholars of al-Azhar should be consulted in all matters related to Sharia.” [emphasis added]

Accordingly, the constitution was praised by Muslim Brotherhood “Spiritual Adviser”, and renowned Sharia supremacist, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who noted it contained, “principles and values needed by Egyptians.” Qaradawi added, “Even if it contains shortcomings, they could be addressed later,”—perhaps alluding to his avowed stratagem of applying the more draconian aspects of Sharia, such as hadd punishments, gradually, during a “transitional” accommodation period.

Qaradawi’s stratagem for applying Sharia in all its liberty-crushing, totalitarian manifestations—a sine qua non of the Muslim Brotherhood first articulated by its founder, Hassan al-Banna, and reiterated (on May 15, 2012) by recently elected Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammad Morsi—could be facilitated by the “Scholars of al-Azhar,” whom the constitution declares, “should be consulted in all matters related to Sharia.”

Since its founding in 973 A.D., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, during that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have represented and espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and infidel hatred at the core of mainstream Islam. The irrefragable truth of Al Azhar’s persistent Medieval obscurantism (i.e., from any rational non-Muslim, if not Islamic perspective), can be readily gleaned from a sampling of fatwas (Islamic religious rulings) and statements issued during 1739, till now. Moreover, the late (d. March, 2010) Al-Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Tantawi’s own virulently Jew-hating writings, statements, and career trajectory—being rewarded for this public, “scholarly,” legacy of hatred—represents the apotheosis of these ugly realities.

This is significant because it means the chief Islamic authority in Egypt is no longer all that confident of a Thousand Year Caliphate under the Muslim Brotherhood or that Morsi will even stay in power. If Al Azhar really thought Morsi was a sure bet, they wouldn’t be hedging their bets now for fear that Morsi will be overthrown.

Egypt’s top Islamic body on Thursday called on President Mohammed Mursi to suspend a decree in which he claimed sweeping powers and demanded an unconditional dialogue between the president and his opponents.

The Al-Azhar institution said Mursi should “suspend the latest decree and stop using it,” in a statement a day after deadly protests between Mursi supporters and opponents, AFP reported.

That comes as Morsi has been forced to call in the Egyptian army to protect the presidential palace. Being forced to use the army is a sign of weakness and reverses some of the Muslim Brotherhood’s victories over the military. It reminds Morsi that his activists are not enough to stay in power. He needs the military and that gives the military power over him and over Egypt.

Egypt’s new draft constitution gives a critical government role to the fundamentalist al-Azhar University, an Islamic center that was lavishly praised by President Barack Obama in his June 2009 “New Beginning” speech in Cairo.

Al-Azhar’s Islamic leadership will get to decide whether Egypt’s laws comply with Islam’s far-reaching “Shariah” laws about conduct, speech, lifestyle and religion, according to the draft constitution, which was hurriedly completed last week by a panel dominated by Islamists.

Back in 2009, Obama declared that Americans owe a debt to al-Azhar.

“It was Islam at places like al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment,” he claimed.

“For over a thousand years, al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning,” Obama said in the second sentence of his much-lauded 2009 speech.

Now, however, al-Azhar’s “role in the government of Egypt and its administration of Shariah spells the end of any remaining freedom in Egyptian society,” said Robert Spencer, an expert on Islam who predicted in 2009 that Egypt’s voters would elect Islamic fundamentalists.

“Al-Azhar is not ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’ … [but] is the foremost exponent of Sunni orthodoxy,” throughout the Arab world, he told The Daily Caller.

That orthodoxy ensures that it can and will use its constitutional power to push for Islamic-style laws that mandate “second-class ‘dhimmi’ status for non-Muslims, institutionalized discrimination against women, and sharp restrictions on the freedom of speech, particularly in regard to Islam,” Spencer said.

Since 973, al-Azhar has trained Sunni imams, and its top leaders have issued so-called “fatwas.” They’re rules for behavior and speech, and are based on the Koran and the sayings of Islam’s primary prophet, Mohammad, who died nearly 1,400 years ago.

Fatwas are not laws, but Islam’s Shariah law assumes that civil law complies with the fatwas.

Al-Azhar’s role is established in several articles of the draft constitution.

Article 2 says that “Islam is the religion of the state… [and] the principles of Shariah are the main source of legislation.”

That far-reaching claim is elaborated in article 219, which says “the principles of Shariah include general evidence and foundations, rules and jurisprudence as well as sources accepted by doctrines of Sunni Islam and the majority of Muslim scholars.”

Though the old constitution also declared the principles of Shariah as the basis of law, the new constitution establishes al-Azhar as the effective courthouse for judging legislation’s compliance with Shariah.

“Al-Azhar … takes the task of preaching [Sunni-style] Islam in Egypt and in the whole world [and] scholars of al-Azhar should be consulted in all matters related to Shariah,” says the draft.

One area where al-Azhar will likely play a role is in deciding the extent of free speech.

“Insulting prophets and messengers is forbidden,” according to article 44 of the constitution, ensuring the government will have to decide if criticism of laws that implement Islam’s Shariah — all of which is based on Islamic texts — should be treated as an insult of Islam’s primary prophet, Muhammad.

Al-Azhar’s role is not spelled out in detail, so its Islamic judgments can be ignored by a hostile legislature or judiciary.

But Egypt’s politics are now dominated by Islamists who regard al-Azhar as the leading source of Islamic law, or Shariah. Also, Islamic theocracies — such as Saudi Arabia’s — thoroughly blend Islam and government, giving religious figures great influence over how laws are drafted and implemented.

The draft constitution is expected to win quick national approval in a referendum unless it is stopped by Egypt’s largely secular Supreme Court. However, the court’s work was paralyzed Dec. 2 by a large mob of Islamists who blocked access to courthouse.

The aggressiveness of the Islamists’ mob seems to echo some of the aggressiveness of the Islamic doctrine taught at al-Azhar, say critics.

In April 2002, for example, al-Azhar’s chief imam endorsed the murder of Israeli civilians by suicide-killers, Andrew Bostom, author of the 2012 book, “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History,” told TheDC.

Obama spent several childhood years in Indonesia, home to a less aggressive brand of Islam, and may not have known of al-Azhar’s history when he praised it in his 2009 speech.

“I have come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” he said. “America and Islam are not exclusive… they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings,” he said.

Obama chose to have his speech jointly hosted by al-Azhar and Cairo University. He praised Cairo’s lecturers and students, and al-Azhar’s leadership and trainee imams, telling them that “together you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.”

He gave Islam the credit for developing algebra and the compass, and early medical breakthroughs, while saying “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

His audience included a few invited members of the now-dominant Muslim Brotherhood movement. In 2009, the movement was largely suppressed by the Hosni Mubarak, the country’s secular dictator, who Obama urged to resign in 2011.

But Obama’s statements also reflect the failure of the White House to appreciate the popularity of Egypt’s Islamists, including Muslim Brotherhood. “They don’t have majority support in Egypt,” he told Fox’s Bill O’Reilly in February 2011.

“Here’s the thing that we have to understand, there are a whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt, there are a whole bunch of educators and civil society in Egypt that wants to come to the fore as well,” he told O’Reilly.

“It’s important for us not to say that our own only two options are either the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed people,” he said.

Islamists, including the brotherhood and the more fundamentalists “salafis,” now dominate Egypt’s democratic politics. Together, they won roughly 75 percent of parliamentary seats in elections held in 2011 and 2012, and held 75 percent of the seats on the panel that drafted the new constitution.

They also won a narrow 52 percent victory in the presidential election for Mohammed Morsi, a top leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, in June 2012.

Sam Solomon, born and raised as a Muslim, had trained in Sharia law for 15 years before converting to Christianity. He was imprisoned and questioned; and was to be put to death, whereupon he chose to go to exile on the pain of death. As a leading experts on Islam and Sharia law, Mr. Solomon has testified before the US congress and is a consultant to the British parliament for matters regarding Islam.

Foreword by Gerard Batten UK Independence Party Member of the European Parliament for London December 2006

Acknowledgements

I express my sincere gratitude to all those who contributed to this proposed Charter. Thank you to those who have read and have helped in editing and to everyone who gave suggestions and advice, with especial thanks to Paul Diamond whose legal expertise was invaluable.

I am most indebted to Gerard Batten MEP for his kindness, leadership, sincerity and all his help. Last but not least my esteemed colleague and researcher Al Maqdisi who is simply indispensable.

Sam Solomon December 2006

Foreword

The Western European view of religion, achieved after centuries of bloodshed, conflict and division, is that religion is a matter of private belief and conscience. Islamic fundamentalists do not share this view. They do not believe in the nation state, democracy, the equality of women, or toleration. They believe in Islamic theocracy, a universal Muslim society, the Umma, based on political rule according to the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Such views are simply incompatible with Western liberal democracy, and we have seen where such extremist beliefs can lead, for example in Afghanistan and Iran. The West has been amazingly lax in recognising the threat posed to its security, freedoms, values and the cohesiveness of society by Islamic fundamentalism. The terrorist atrocities in London of July 2005 showed just how dangerous these beliefs can be.

Islamic fundamentalists have however made great gains in the propaganda war by convincing many non-Muslims that they are the true representatives of Islam, whereas they are not. The vast majority of Muslims that non-Muslims meet in every-day life are decent, respectable, law-abiding and hardworking. Western governments and societies have to offer them their support while standing firm against the extremists.

A great step forward in this process is Sam Solomon’s Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding. The Charter allows Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the modern world. It affirms that they want to enjoy the freedoms of the West and live as law-abiding and peace-loving people. I very much hope that those groups claiming to represent Muslims will decide to sign and embrace it.

Gerard Batten MEP December 2006

Introduction

If Islam is a religion of peace, as portrayed by the Muslim community and its clergy, and those acts of terrorism committed in its name are the acts of few misguided individuals who have misunderstood and misinterpreted its teaching, then Islam is completely innocent of the violence and the terrorism that is sometimes attributed to it.

Consequently, in extrapolating from this premise, one should expect that in the light of the current terrorist threat perpetrated by some in the name of Islam that the faithful ones and the authorised scholars and experts call a general conference of its Ulema, the learned scholars of Islamic religion, to discuss provisions such as laid out in this Charter. They should have no objection to being signatories to it, and upholding its content both in letter and spirit in the name of Islam and for the welfare of their host societies and that of humanity at large.

We call on organisations representing the Islamic faith such as the European Council of Fatwa, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Al-Azhar, the Organisation of Islamic Conference, the Muslim World League and all its affiliates, national and international Islamic bodies, to endorse and sign this proposed Charter as an example to all European Muslims.

It is hoped that the Muslim leaders would agree that whosoever deviates from the path of this Charter would have gone on an un- Islamic path and thus such a person would be regarded as outcast from the religion of Islam; hence a non-Muslim.

It is hoped that at least all European Muslim leaders and their institutions both national and Europe-wide will be signatories to this Charter as the first expression of their desire to live in peace within their host countries, as law-abiding and peace- loving and peace-promoting communities alongside their non- Muslim neighbours.

Whatever their real or perceived grievances these need to be addressed through proper channels and not through violence and terrorism.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Preamble

We the undersigned as the representatives of Muslim communities in our capacity as leaders at various levels as Muftis, Ulemas, Imams, community leaders, heads of Islamic madrassas, Muezzins, Mazuns and all other Islamic relevant offices including those of free thinkers and leaders of NGOs as well as NPOs (Non-Profit Organisations), youth leaders, women leaders at all levels of all Islamic institutions commit to uphold, promote, propagate and abide by these articles in letter and spirit of this Charter of Muslim Understanding.

We commit to the fostering and promotion of peaceful co- existence across Europe in the spirit of one brotherhood amongst all humanity treating all as equals in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the charter of the United Nations, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly resolution 217A(III) of 1948), and the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

Whosoever breaches any of the articles stated and detailed below will be regarded as a person outside the House of Islam, and shall be denounced as a non-Muslim, and will find no protection in the Muslim community.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 1

We will respect all other non-Muslim religions in word and deed by issuing a clear fatwa with an immediate effect prohibiting:

a) The use of force and violence of any kind against the followers of any1 or all non-Muslim religions

b) The issue of threats through any religious fatwa threatening with violence against institutions or assassination of individuals or groups and followers of other religions who may be domiciled in the affected localities or any other country be it a Muslim majority or a otherwise

c) The use of any force in any form for whatever grievances felt or actual

d) Forbidding the killing or targeting of any civilian or civil institutions2 in Islamic and non-Islamic countries as a way and means of addressing any of our grievances.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 2

We will respect and honour all civilisations, cultures, and traditions of other nations and people irrespective of their ethnic or religious backgrounds.

This will be achieved by introducing a clear educational programme through all Islamic institutions and outlets, as well as organising special meetings to address youth:

a) By promoting brotherhood of all mankind without any religious or ethnic discrimination or differentiation

b) By declaring the equality of all men and women and the profanity3 of none

c) By promoting the validity and the viability of the national domestic law to be fully adhered to and taking precedence over the Shari’ah.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 3

In the spirit of the saying, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2:256), we commit to the upholding the value of freedom, and in particular freedom of belief and expression. The signatories hereby declare that religion is a private and personal matter and a personal choice. It is neither a right of a community nor a state right to dictate or interfere in a person’s personal choice of faith.

a) As such there will be no recriminations against any Muslim or non-Muslim who chooses to change, discard, or adopt another faith be it within the House of Islam, from any Islamic faction, or to a non-Islamic religion or faith.

b) This concept will be re-issued as a binding fatwa across Europe and offered for publication in national and local newspapers in order to avoid any misinterpretations.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 4

The basis of the legitimacy of Islamists’ acts of terror and their perpetuated violence is the authority that they obtain from being sanctioned by religious leaders. These sanctioning statements are known as fatwas. This situation is now being reviewed in many Islamic nations.

Jordan has passed a bill regulating the process of fatwas and the accountability of those that issue them. Those in breach of that regulation are liable to face severe penalties. Saudi Arabia too has tabled proposals to that effect, and other Arab Islamic governments have commissioned a study into it. Nation states must consider this measure as a safeguard.

Following from the foregoing articles, the signatories to this Charter ban and prohibit the right of issuing any fatwa that would results in violence against individuals or institutions.

a) Any such fatwa will be null and void.

b) The right of issuing fatwa will be limited to a specified body, and only that body will have the right to issue relevant religious fatwas.

c) Fatwas issued by anybody else (either an individual or an institution) apart from the authorised body will be invalid and of no effect.

d) In case other than the specified body issues a fatwa it would be regarded as unlawful and it would be for the appropriate governmental authorities to bring him/her/them to justice.

e) The signatories to this Charter will fully co-operate with the police and security forces in bringing him/her/them to justice, including measures of deportation where appropriate.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 5

As peace-loving and peace-promoting people domiciled in Europe, and equally believing that Islam is a religion of peace that promotes co-operation and collaboration of all peoples irrespective of their religious or ethnic or gender backgrounds:

a) The notion and all teachings of violent physical Jihad is to be regarded as invalid, inappropriate and irrelevant— hence inapplicable

b) Therefore all Qur’anic Jihad verses encouraging physical violence, whether implicit or explicit, or any other quotations from any Islamic source, be that Sunnah or the sayings of the Prophet or that of the learned scholars or leaders of Jihad at any given time or place, are to be regarded as inapplicable, invalid and non-Islamic

c) All Qur’anic verses that could be of inciting nature religiously, ethnically or discriminatory in regard to gender are just historical and will be regarded as non-effective for today’s world

d) These verses will be either deferred or suspended until such time as scholars find a solution for their interpretation.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 6

Based on the acceptance of equality of all mankind, brotherhood of all and the freedom and sanctity of all human life, and based on the principle that “whosoever slays one man is as though he has slain the whole of humanity,” all acts of terrorism are prohibited, shunned and outlawed:

a) No suicidal mission undertaken for whatever the reason is justified

b) No violent physical Jihad operation will be regarded as sacred

c) No one who chooses to die in such an operation will be regarded as martyr.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 7

We jointly will fight terrorism and do all within our abilities to stem it from our institutions through:

a) Full co-operation in with all the relevant authorities, including those of the Police and Intelligence Services

b) By watching and monitoring mosque sermons and other mosque teaching programmes for messages not in accordance with this Charter

c) Making certain that at the religious gatherings and lectures given to youth co-operation and peaceful existence with non- Muslims is proclaimed and the hate ideology is rooted out

d) Reporting any secret or suspicious gathering of youth cells in any of our institutions

e) Monitoring all publications, including books, CDs, DVDs and all other media, that serve the cause of militant Islamists

f) Ensuring transparency and full access to the authorities to verify the implementation of this Charter.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 8

We will foster a better relationship with non-Muslims and promote peace by:

a) Issuing regular fatwas promoting peace and brotherhood between Muslims and non-Muslims as a foundational teaching of Islam

b) Produce a clear programme promoting peace and forgiveness amongst all people groups irrespective of their religious, cultural, linguistic or ethnic background

c) Taking stern action through establishing by-laws to expel any Muslim official or office-bearer at any level who engages or promotes any teaching or activity not in accordance with this Charter

d) Forbidding any anti-Jewish or anti-Christian supplications at all times, particularly at prayer times and other religious gatherings.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 9

We the signatories request all Islamic institutions and all of its associates, affiliations and outlets in co-operation with the signatories to this Charter:

a) To discard all texts that discriminate with impunity against Christians and Jews by describing them as Kaffirs, apostates, polytheists, the children of apes, and swine, and prohibit any inciting, insulting, and all discriminatory references based on their religion

b) To abandon the practice of takffir (infidel) against anybody, be that a Muslim or a non-Muslim. (Once a Muslim leader declares anyone as such, it is for the faithful ones to see that person eliminated.)

c) To prohibit and abolish the practice of Takkiya (Islamic doctrine of legitimate lying and deception of others) to advance the cause of Muslims and Islam.

This insulting, inciting, discrimination, and deception is not to be upheld or practised.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Article 10

Request all officially constituted Islamic bodies and institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of those Qur’anic verses that call for Jihad and violence against non-Muslims. For example, but not exclusively:

a) O Prophet (Muhammad)! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand. (Sura 8:65)

b) Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for theHereafter fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward. (Sura 4:74)

c) Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghuat (great Satan). So fight you against the friends of Shaiytan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaiytan. (Sura 4:76)

d)And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (dissension,disbelief and polytheism) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do. (Sura 8:39)

e)And kill them (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (Sura 2:191)

f) Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As- Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Sura 9:5)

g) The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Sura 5:33)

h) Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people… (Sura 9:14)

i) Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah (humiliating tax on non-Muslims) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Sura 9:29)

j) And make ready against them all you can of power , including steeds of war (i.e. all forms of weaponry) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Sura 8:60)

k) (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.” (Sura 8:12)

l)We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers). (Sura 3:151)

(This verse was given in Medina regarding the pagans of Makkah, during the battle of Uhud. Soon after that it was made effective with the conquest of Makkah, and its application from the Shari’ah or Islamic jurisprudence is to be on all non-Muslims, here and now.)

m)O you who have been given the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Believe in what We have revealed (to Muhammad) confirming what is (already) with you, before We efface faces (by making them like the back of necks, without nose, mouth, eyes, etc) and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers. And the Commandment of Allah is always executed. (Sura 4:47)

n) O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyah (friends, protectors, helpers, etc), they are but Awliyah to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Awliyah, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust). (Sura 5:51)

o) O you who believe! Take not as your Bitanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayatt (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand. (Sura 3:118)

p)Surely, they have disbelieved who say: “Allah is he, the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary.” But the Messiah (Jesus) said: “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers) there are no helpers. (Sura 5:72)

q) Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no god but One Allah. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them. (Sura 5:73)

(This painful torment is both here and now as well as being punished by Allah’s angels in the grave and in the last day as portrayed and expounded by Islamic religious and legal manuals.) These, and other similar verses from the Qur’an and the sayings of the prophet reported in Islamic manuals called Hadith, are sources of inspiration for hate and terrorism.

A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

Conclusion

The Signatories to this Charter re-affirm their profound beliefs in those fundamental freedoms of justice and peace upon which the maintenance of domestic political democracy is dependent. The Signatories to this Charter re-affirm their profound belief in the charters of the United Nations, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly resolution 217A(III) of 1948), and the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), including the fundamental freedom to proselytise and in the fundamental right of the individual to change their religion.

The Signatories to this Charter re-affirm their profound belief in peace between the Islamic communities and other non-Islamic communities.

In 2009, Barack Obama spoke at Al-Azhar and declared, “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.”

Dr. Abdul Hamid al-Atrash

In 2012, Dr. Abdul Hamid al-Atrash, the head of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar in Egypt, which issues rulings of Islamic law, declared that Jews could be banned from going to pray in a synagogue.

Al-Atrash says that as long as Muslims cannot travel to Jerusalem while it is in Jewish hands, then Muslims have the right to bar Jews from visiting their own holy places, under the Islamic concept of “reciprocity.” Therefore, he says, Egyptian authorities have the right to ban Jews from going to the Alexandria synagogue on Rosh Hashanah.

Muslims can visit Jerusalem. They choose not to because it’s full of Jews. And since they are too bigoted to visit Jerusalem, then Jews shouldn’t be able to pray in Egypt either.

For all intents and purposes this means that Judaism is on the verge of being outlawed in Egypt. It can still be practiced privately, but not communally, and Judaism is a communal religion.

At Al-Azhar, Obama said, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it’s being challenged in many different ways.”

And we keep seeing that tolerance over and over again. At Al Azhar, Obama boasted of standing up for the right of Muslim women to wear the Hijab. Will be similarly stand up for the right of Jews to pray in a synagogue in Egypt?

In February 2011, 16 months ago, The United West (formerly, the Florida Security Council) PREDICTED that the Muslim Brotherhoodwould take over Egypt. Once in power the Muslim Brotherhood will dramatically continue their mission of world domination, including efforts to defeat Israel and America either kinetically or culturally.

Today, The United West are (sadly) laughing our heads off, listening to the CNN commentators including Christiane Amanpour, stating that this “democratic election” is as significant as the Berlin Wall coming down!

Seriously, are these “professionals” completely NUTS??

(NB: When you are a post-modern relativist you no longer have a basis from which to see evil)

This Muslim Brotherhood victory is a complete and utter failure for Western Civilization, America and Israel. The shariah-Muslims, worldwide and IN THE USA, reading this victory through the Caliphate lens of confirmation from Allah, see this win as their MANIFEST DESTINY, thereby intensifying their spread of Islam through the political process and by the…sword.

Some things just never change in 1400 years.

Look out world – Insane Islam will soon take control of some of the most powerful Military weapons know to man. The ONLY possible good news is that the Egyptian Military may NOT relinquish control to the Muslim Brotherhood. If that happens watch out for another (now common-place) Muslim-on-Muslim bloodletting, where the religion of peace Muslims kill each other in the name of the…religion of peace!

WAKE UP AMERICA…STOP THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA,

STOP THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN THE WHITE HOUSE, STOP THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD!

(btw – PALESTINIANS are celebrating this Muslim Brotherhood winjust like they celebrated the 9/11 attacks on America)

≈≈≈

HERE IS OUR EXACT EMAIL FROM FEBRUARY 10, 2011 YOU MUST WATCH OUR PREDICTION, IN THE VIDEO BELOW!

As noted yesterday, Dr. Khairat Al-Shater, Deputy Chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), will be the popular, mainstream Egyptian Islamic party’s candidate for the Presidency, breaking the MB’s pledge not to seek this executive office, and assure itself a potential monopoly on state power.

Despite being predictably measured and guarded, thus far, in his public statements, and reported attitudes, even the New York Times conceded that Al-Shater supports “an explicitly Islamic government.” Moreover, the Times acknowledges Al-Shater’s active promotion of “undemocratic” tendencies:

Mr. Shater led a push to bar Brotherhood members from dissenting from the political stands of its Freedom and Justice Party, and he led the expulsion of those who sought less conservative Islamist politics.

But perhaps most revealing of Al-Shater’s totalitarian Islamic Weltanschauung were the frank comments he made about Al Azhar University, during an interview with Al-Ahram from January of this year, and more explicitly, on implementing an Islamic state in April of 2011.

Since its founding in 973 A.D., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, during that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and infidel hatred at the core of mainstream Islam. The irrefragable truth of Al Azhar’s persistent Medieval obscurantism can be readily gleaned from a sampling of fatwas (Islamic religious rulings) and statements issued during 1739, till now. Moreover, the late Al-Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Tantawi’s own writings, statements, and career trajectory represent the apotheosis of these ugly realities.

Notwithstanding these doctrinal and historical realities, while affirming appropriately, its stature as the global representative of mainstream Sunni Islam, Al-Shater opined, regarding Al-Azhar,

We believe Al-Azhar has a key role to play; and we are happy for it to take its natural place on the religious level primarily, as a beacon of moderate mainstream Islamic thought. So, a major global role awaits Al-Azhar, both in Egypt and abroad. Indeed, Al-Azhar’s role is required strongly in Africa and Asia as well as former Soviet Union countries. We hope it will focus on its primary role, but by all means it should express its views on political issues, because indeed Islam is religion and state.

Earlier speaking at a conference in Alexandria in April of 2011, Al-Shater was more concrete about his and the MB’s ultimate aspirations(full translation of Arabic statement, here),

We are continuing to build the individual and the House and the Muslim community, and prepare for the Islamic government as a stage subsequent to the application of a renaissance of community-based Islamic reference…to rule the world stage, and [with?] the return of the Islamic State.

Al-Shater’s aspirations for the full-blown re-emergence of theocratic Islamic governance in Egypt seem quite clear, and are consistent with MB’s long held goals.